0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 07:23 am
re tariffs and free trade Nafta etc I fear both sides of the aisle for their lack of foresight.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 08:41 am
Given the increasing multi-polarity of the world; the greater assertiveness of developing countries; the increasing political effect of EU integration; and the growing divergence of both public attitudes and government policies between Europe and America, I believe a trade war (or worse) between the EU and the USA sometime in the next two decades is very likely. One could well entertain the notion of 'better now than later' at some point.

Of course the actions of democratic governments in every country always have a strong element of politics in them - by design. Thus Chancellor Schroeder's expressed hostility towards American policy in the Persian Gulf on the eve of his last election; Clinton's salvos of billions of dollars of cruise missiles against empty camps in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan at propitious moments in his political travail over the impeachment matter; and Bush's steel tariffs - all had a strong element of political motivation in them.

It would also be patently false to suggest there were no objective factors whatever behind them. To what degree competing motivations may have affected the motives of these political leaders is ultimately unknowable. However one who suggests Scroeder's motives were as pure as those of Clinton, but that those of Bust were surely political is at best a fool.

The fact is that even at the time they were announced, the steel tariffs were styled as a temporary measure designed to give the industry time and incentive to consolidate and reduce costs. The timing of their cessation strongly suggests that the threat of retaliation by the EU was indeed an important , perhaps decisive, factor in lifting them now, but it clearly was not the only one.

The EU is also a major practicioner of economic protectionism, particularly in the area of agriculture. Moreover they are adept at styling their protectionism as mere environmental measures as for example with GM foods. Overall we have been less shrill and more tolerant of their protectionism than they have of ours. Hypocrisy is easily as European a vice as it is American.

Thomas' reference to American abrogation of contracts with its Allies is quite offensive to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of the history of the last century.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 08:51 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Thomas' reference to American abrogation of contracts with its Allies is quite offensive to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of the history of the last century.

That's in the nature of the subject I'm afraid. Any honest description of America's current foreign policy inevitably involves some degree of rudeness.

UPDATE: I would add that any honest description of Europe's trade policy inevitably involves some degree of rudeness as well -- and I have contributed my share of such rudeness in threads about GM foods and Europe. But this is a thread about America, so I see comments on Europe's foreign/trade policy as off-topic and refrain from making them.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 01:55 pm
While a degree of rudeness may often accompany arguments on both sides of these issues it is never either inevitable or necessary. If a certain defect or inconsistency in behavior is common to both sides of a dispute, it is more than rude to point out the defect of one side and be silent about the other - it is also deceptive.

It is always relatively easy to criticize one who is responsible for something, and who acts on that responsibility. The false starts, flaws in judgement or execution, unexpected turns, poor communications, and all the other realities that beset purposeful action are usually quite evident to all. It is much more difficult to see the failures of those who do not act, or who allow others to act on their behalf. They generally occupy the critic's perch, busily pointing out the flaws of others, while immune from the criticism their inaction truly merits.

Thomas suggests the flaws in U.S. foreign policy are so pervasive that any discussion of it must involve a significant measure of them. To what extent are these flaws relative to his concepts of appropriate policy objectives, as opposed to ours which are likely to be different?

I happen to believe the Clinton administration really had no Foreign policy other than a preference for inaction or delayed resolution of major issues and the inclination for 'multilateral' formalisms as a means of rationalizing it all. This was a policy that could not have continued without major disruptions, whether from a resounding rejection of the Kyoto and Rome (ICC) treaties by our Senate, major adventures on the part of North Korea or Iraq, an explosion in the Mideast, or the growing international Islamist terrorism. Major disruption was inevitable.

We are now acting aggressively, but with mixed results, on these and other issues. It is clear that Europe prefers the Clinton approach. However the ample historical evidence strongly suggests that this preference is not Europe's best trait. Indeed it has led to great misery.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 02:07 pm
Political Altruism, domestic or global, would be wonderful. So would everlasting peace, prosperity, and health. As it is, we're stuck with Politics as Politics is. That is unlikely to change much in the near-to-mid-term, judging from the roughly 5000-Year record against which we can compare the present and attempt to discern trends.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 02:17 pm
dyslexia wrote:
not only was the steel industry wrong, Bush made it worse by first approving the tariff in the first place

Dys and I agree yet again. Bush totally screwed up on this one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 02:19 pm
dys' quote, "re tariffs and free trade Nafta etc I fear both sides of the aisle for their lack of foresight." Lack of foresight is the bane of all federal, state and local governments. They have no problem spending money that doesn't exist in good times or bad. They still don't know what "save for a rainy day" means. Even California gov wants to float a 15 billion bond, so they don't have to make the hard decisions of cutting their budget.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 02:23 pm
Here's the latest figure on the national debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 03:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Thomas suggests the flaws in U.S. foreign policy are so pervasive that any discussion of it must involve a significant measure of them.

If this is how my posts came across, there has been some kind of miscommunication. In particular, I suspect I didn't get across that my beef is with the current foreign policy of the US, not the policy of the US per se. Since World War II, America did a great job pursuing its objectives by setting up international institutions and working through them -- under presidents of both parties. A lot of bad things can be said about these institutions -- as you point out, it is always easy to criticize those who do something -- but they have brought an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity to this world. They have proven that international politics can work to the advantage of everyone involved. And that's why I get pissed off when governments like mine and yours start to pursue a policy that rules only apply if the government wants them to apply. Neither Schroeder nor Bush are aggressive pursuers of their countries' own good. They just play them on TV.

georgeob1 wrote:
I happen to believe the Clinton administration really had no Foreign policy other than a preference for inaction or delayed resolution of major issues and the inclination for 'multilateral' formalisms as a means of rationalizing it all.

That's not a very nice way of saying it, but I agree with the substance of this. I just happen to think Clinton was right to have a preference of inaction, and I would hold this opinion even if I was a US citizen.

georgeob1 wrote:
It is clear that Europe prefers the Clinton approach. However the ample historical evidence strongly suggests that this preference is not Europe's best trait. Indeed it has led to great misery.

I guess it depends from which country you're looking at it. I'd say my own country's experience is that it was Wilhelm II's pre-1914 aggressive approach that led to great misery. By countrast, Germany's post-1949 approach of what you call inaction, paired with multilateral formalisms was highly successful, however boring.

I prefer boring, bureaucratic foreign policy to the aggressive kind. And I suspect this is basically a difference of taste between you and me on which we can just agree to disagree.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Dec, 2003 04:12 pm
Thomas,

A Wilhelm II/ Bismark comparison would indeed serve very well to make your point concerning the merits of avoiding precipitous action or aggression. However there are counter examples - consider Chamberlain vs Churchill and Reynaud vs DeGaulle. I too believe a bias toward inaction, as long as it doesn't yield a worse situation, is preferable to a bias toward action in something so impenetrable yet consequential as the competitive relations among nations, cultures and political movements.

The many devils are in the details, and retrospective analysis is clouded by the fact that history's alternatives remain unknowable.

It isn't at all clear to me that the Bush Administration has been nearly as aggressive in its preference for action as is often portrayed. The opening hand was the Kyoto treaty. The simple fact is this treaty was already dead as far as the United States was concerned. During the two years of the Clinton administration following their signing of this treaty they only once floated a discussion of a gasoline or BTU tax to discourage excess use of hydrocarbon fuels. There was an immediate political firestorm which led them to quickly fold their tents and leave the field. From that moment on they took no action whatever to either persuade the public or advance the ratification of the treaty. Meanwhile the Senate voted 97 to 0 in a non-binding resolution (the treaty had not been submitted for ratification) condemning the treaty. George Bush merely formalized what had already happened. I was frankly surprised at the European political firestorm that followed. Did they suppose that Clinton would have lifted his finger to support the treaty? Though the details are different a similar story could be told about the Treaty of Rome and the ICC.

I can't help but believe that much of the European apparently visceral discontent with Bush arises from other factors. Perhaps his manner is too much suggestive of things about America that Europeans have long disliked. Could it all have been a result of his "You are either with us or against us" rhetoric? Possible, but hard to believe.

If it is the objective elements of his international strategy vis a vis the Middle East and Persian Gulf , then I simply believe Europe is wrong. Much of the violence in the Middle East today is a result of the unchecked Israeli assault on the spirit and letter of the Madrid accords, all of which occurred during the Clinton years. Worse the Clinton Barak "peace plan", offered as it was with so much fanfare and deceptive exaggeration, was itself the proximate cause of the eruption of terrorist violence that occurred there.

France and Russia were well on their way to ending the sanctions on Iraq completely, even after Saddam unilaterally expelled the inspectors. The prospect of a Saddam with several billions a year of additional oil money in his hands was truly frightening. Clinton merely allowed this to develop.

Similarly the bribing of North Korea only emboldened Kim Jong Il and led to worse behavior on his part and more unrealistic fantasy on the part of South Korea. China and Japan remained on the sidelines as disinterested observers, while the pressures on the United States grew and grew.

Islamist terrorism had been increasing at a monotone pace, and the European powers that created the conditions that fed it appeared to be either cowed or indifferent.

All of this created a very dangerous situation in which the temporizing of the previous eight years could not have safely been continued, even by Clinton.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:04 am
On the international aspect, I surmise the obvious ability of The US to press her agenda regardless of essentially Franco-German opposition has engendered precisely the sort of resentment and jealousy attendent upon being forced to acknowledge impotence. While I expect no sea-change of European sentiment, I note an increasing European polarization, pulling France and Germany into one camp, with the rest of Europe, including The Former Soviet Union and clients, into another, even given Russia's proclivity to align herself with the anti-war aspect of the Franco-German block. The growing confrontational nature of fiscal and constitutional differences among EU members and soon-likely-to-be members, coupled with British reluctance to fully integrate into the EU and Russian rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, along with general EU concern over the strengthening of the Euro vs the Dollar, do not bode well for the near-to-mid-term development and consolidation of the EU. I suspect much institutional EU anti-US sentiment is more anti-Bush than specifically anti-US, driven by dismay over demonstrated EU inability to disuade or even seriously to inconvenience Bush in his prosecution of his agenda, and I suspect there is less broad popular anti-US/anti-Bush sentiment than is exhibited at the institutional level. It is interesting to note an upswell of Conservative politicians and parties throughout the EU and associates-to-be, even within Germany and France. I further expect fiscal considerations will advance the Conservative point-of-view throughout The Continent, which will perforce blunt oppostion to US policy.

Moving back to Bush the Younger and his domestic electoral prospects, I submit for consideration the following:

Quote:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?"

FN/Opinion Dynamics, Dec. 3-4

Approve: 52% (Previous, 11/18-19: 52%)
Disapprove: 34% (Previous: 41%)
Don't know: 14% (Previous: 7%)

AP/Ipsos-Public Affairs, Dec. 1-3

Approve: 53% (No Previous)
Disapprove: 44%
Unsure: 3%

U. Pennsylvania/Annenberg Dec. 1-3

Approve: 61% (Previous, 11/23-26: 56%)
Disapprove: 36% (Previous: 41%)
Not Sure: 3% (Previous: 3%)



Now, of course, any one poll is just a snapshot. However, reading back through the previous polls, one is struck by the fact Approval ratings consistently have scored 50% or higher, with recent trend upward, while disapproval ratings have not exceeded 47% and have averaged much lower, trending toward the upper 30-lower 40% range. It does not look promising for The Opposition, and, considered in context with '02 and '03 election results, in fact leads me to expect the coming US elections will evidence a country far less inclined to endorse Democrat policy than had been the case 4 years ago. A significant Republican victory in '04 may be expected to have ramifications of negative nature toward and impact on EU institutional opposition to US policy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:25 am
timber

Quote:
British reluctance to fully integrate into the EU


UK's year of entry to the EU is 1973. And "entry" means 'full member', with all the pro's and con's.

Quote:
I suspect there is less broad popular anti-US/anti-Bush sentiment than is exhibited at the institutional level.


When you look at the polls, it seems even to be greater, especially more widespread, i.e. in Italy, Spain, and the UK than the "governmental opinions" of these countries!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:26 am
Thomas wrote:
..... America did a great job pursuing its objectives by setting up international institutions and working through them -- under presidents of both parties. A lot of bad things can be said about these institutions -- as you point out, it is always easy to criticize those who do something -- but they have brought an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity to this world. They have proven that international politics can work to the advantage of everyone involved. And that's why I get pissed off when governments like mine and yours start to pursue a policy that rules only apply if the government wants them to apply. Neither Schroeder nor Bush are aggressive pursuers of their countries' own good. They just play them on TV


I agree with this, however, I also believe that we had not fully thought through the inescapable effects of adding more and more countries, operating at lower and lower levels of political development to those international institutions. That, coupled with lassitude and a preference for inaction on the part of the advanced countries, brought the potential for serious trouble. This unfortunate outcome has indeed occurred. We must now deal with it, or let the advanced countries sink towards the average levels that now prevail in these vaunted international institutions.


Thomas wrote:

I guess it depends from which country you're looking at it. I'd say my own country's experience is that it was Wilhelm II's pre-1914 aggressive approach that led to great misery. By countrast, Germany's post-1949 approach of what you call inaction, paired with multilateral formalisms was highly successful, however boring.

I prefer boring, bureaucratic foreign policy to the aggressive kind. And I suspect this is basically a difference of taste between you and me on which we can just agree to disagree.


I do believe that Germany's post 1949 policies, both political and economic, have been models of intelligent and principled national behavior under extraordinary circumstances. It would be difficult to find better examples in history. While it is true that historical necessity compelled Germany to operate within international structures, principally NATO and the evolving European Community, it is not accurate to suggest that Germany's role in them was merely bureaucratic and passive. (Perhaps Wilhelm would have found them so, but I doubt that one as wise as Bismark would). Germany emerged as the economic leader in Europe, the major political force in the heart of Europe, and with the willing assent of her neighbors (and some help from the U.S.A.) for her reunification at a particularly turbulent moment in history. Moreover Germany has dealt with the many expected and unexpected problems of modernizing formerly Socialist states in a rational way that is no doubt instructive in the now expanded community of Europe.

However Europe is not the world. Not all European solutions will work in the wider and more diverse contests that now beset the world community. Happily there are no Mugabwes or Saddams in Europe today. We have already seen that preferred European methods were quite ineffective in dealing with similar figures who did emerge during the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. It took real pressure from America to spur the Europeans into needed action, and even that came two years too late for thousands of Bosnians.

The western world is now faced with a serious challenge from the Moslem world that has suddenly awakened to its relative backwardness. This has spawned a reactionary Islamist movement that seeks to end it's discomfort with illusory attempts to recreate past glories, and attack its western exploiters and infidels who would induce an undesireable (to them) modernism into their lives.. To a very large degree this is a reaction to centuries of conflict and exploitation at the hands of European powers, chiefly the UK and France. (It is currently fashionable to deny this and point only to excessive U.S. support of Israel as the cause. Certainly that is a factor - but even this is a problem whose origins are in Europe - and I mean all of Europe, including France and the UK in particular.) I have seen damn little constructive strategy or action for dealing with this major problem coming from Europeans. Instead we get only obfucation and unsolicited criticism for our actions, such as they are.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:20 pm
Bush is losing NASCAR Nation:

Quote:


More, including the flip side, at "Attention, Wal-Mart Voters".

Oh, and here's a report from a VA hospital waiting room:

Quote:
I received a letter from the V.A. Administration about a month ago to report on Nov. 24 at 2:20 p.m. for a doctor's appointment. The "waiting list" for DAVs [disabled American veterans] has taken up to three years to secure a primary physician in the new V.A. Medical Center in Minneapolis, but as the result of private grants, some federal funding and some volunteers, they have imported a few dozen doctors and medical assistants to alleviate this problem.

As I was waiting in the general call area, where you wait as they determine which doctor you will see first, which test to be given, etc., I was with approximately 100-125 other veterans. This was a diverse group ranging from very elderly men in wheelchairs on oxygen and with assistance, to recently returned soldiers from Iraq.

The new facility has much more room and better accommodations than the old facility at Fort Snelling. We had comfortable chairs, and TVs were stationed overhead for everyone to see and hear if they chose to. During my wait, our president, George W. Bush, appeared on the TV for a news conference. It became readily apparent that President Bush was speaking to a large group (apparently) of soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., and astonishingly to me at least, he was once again wearing a military uniform!

For those that know me it is no surprise and to those that don't know me, I am no "fan" of President (Shrub) Bush. I want to make this clear so there are no accusations of misrepresentation, and this is primarily why I remained silent as this speech by Bush continued on. Something phenomenal was happening: At each "central table," where the controls and speakers for the television sets are contained in the remote controls so as not to disturb others, the channels all went to his "speech/send-off" and the volume was turned up to the point that even the most hearing impaired were being moved to hear what was going on.

Then it started. First, a veteran around 50 years old in my area said, "I can't believe he has the guts to wear that uniform!" Others around the room started making remarks like, "Count the lies!" and "Didn't he learn anything on that aircraft carrier?" I'll clean up the language, but not long into Shrub's obvious photo op there were so many men and a few women veterans either yelling at each other or at the TV that staff members came in thinking someone had a serious health issue, or that perhaps an unstable patient had gone into a rage.

Uniformly and, as best as I could decipher, almost all the men in that room were either angry, disgusted, frustrated or simply insulted. I have held the belief that retired military are abundantly GOP supporters...


Letter from an Army Vet
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 12:27 pm
PDid, I was wondering when the vets were going to wake up and smell the coffee. This president said one thing during his campaign, and did the opposite by cutting veteran's benefits. Couldn't understand why it's taken so long. Maybe, other Americans will wake up and smell the coffee too.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 08:54 pm
Quote:
How King of New York took battle to the Great Polariser

Graydon Carter is one of the biggest names in US magazines. Now Vanity Fair's editor is gunning for George Bush

Joanna Walters in New York
Sunday December 7, 2003
The Observer

He has been hailed as the King Of New York. With his charming manners and ability to make or break celebrities, Graydon Carter is to the magazine world what Jay Leno is to the American talk show - powerbroker to the formerly, currently and would-be famous.

Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair, was portrayed by some as a lightweight when he took over from Tina Brown almost a decade ago. He once worked as a telegraph man in Saskatchewan before powering his way through American journalism and going on to become a celebrity in his own right. Now, however, he is no longer content with damning the reputation of Hollywood's finest: Carter has emerged as the cheerleader of a movement to change the face of America by having George Bush thrown out as president.

Famous throughout America for his A-list Oscar parties, Carter has picked up the challenge of leading America's intellectual liberal luminaries in a battle against Bush when the race for next November's election gets seriously under way with the primaries after Christmas.

An influential institution at the grand Condé Nast monthly that, from its huge building on a corner of New York's Times Square, rules on what is hot in A-list celebrity culture and style, Carter has turned his normally innocuous monthly Editor's Letter into a campaign for 'regime change'.

His January 2004 letter will blast Bush's 'wrongheaded' state visit to Britain, ridicule Tony Blair as having a schoolboy's crush on the President and slam 'deceptions' in the run-up to a war in Iraq that is 'out of control'.

In previous columns he has accused Bush of lying over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and shaming the country by allowing members of the Saudi royal family to fly out of the US without questioning two days after the 11 September terrorist attacks. He has slammed healthcare gaps, security, the burgeoning deficit, tax cuts for the rich, the US reputation abroad and corruption.

This has proved surprising given his magazine's even-handed coverage of the war on Iraq, compared with the supine, pro-Bush stance of much of the American press.

Denouncing Bush has made his Editor's Letter one of the best-read parts of the magazine, with advertisers clamouring to pay top rates for the page opposite the column.

Carter is now turning to Hillary Clinton as America's saviour. He believes she is the only Democrat with the 'X' factor - charisma, toughness and a certain je ne sais quoi that makes her a natural leader.

This weekend it emerged that he is also writing an anti-Bush book and, he told The Observer, has been campaigning behind the scenes to get Hillary to run for president 'right now'.

'I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. But there is a large, seething majority out there against what Bush is doing to this country. This administration is as fundamentalist as the Islamics,' Carter said.

His book, What We Have Lost, which will examine the failings of Bush in office, is to be published late next summer as the election campaign approaches its climax.

'It is about the fragile state of US democracy, looking at what this administration has done to the environment, the judiciary and civil liberties. This is a very dangerous time in America,' he said.

He promised it will not be 'hysterical' or a rant, but fact-based - researched by him and a small team and written himself: 'It is different from the other books out there. I am not a liberal ideologue; I am very much a libertarian. I never got invited to the Clinton White House.

'If Hillary announced right now that she was running for President she could beat Bush. She is no less qualified than he was when he got it and has been a good Senator.'

Carter moved to the US from Canada 25 years ago. He admires his birth country's progress on legalising soft drugs, passing gay marriage rights and opposition to the war in Iraq.

Last week a Hollywood bash for the cream of wealthy intellectual society figures in Beverly Hills was starkly themed as a 'Hate Bush' evening. Liberals are fighting back after years of flinching at the constant, populist right-wing vilification of Bill Clinton and ruing his self-destruction over Monica Lewinsky.

Some commentators now believe Bush's new status as hate figure surpasses even the intense loathing by the Left of Richard Nixon. Anti-Bush books feature heavily on the New York Times best-sellers list, such as Michael Moore's Dude, Where's My Country?, Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and Bushwacked by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

George Soros, the billionaire financier, recently gave £8.6 million to a liberal group because, he said, removing Bush had become 'the central focus of my life'.

Meanwhile, 90 per cent of party Republicans support Bush, despite Carter identifying signs of the start of a moderate Republican backlash. And Bush's national approval rating went back above 60 per cent from less than 50 after he swaggered about for the cameras in Baghdad with a decorative Thanksgiving turkey that wasn't even eaten.

Time magazine has dubbed Bush the Great Polariser - love him or hate him. Joe Conason, author of Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, said: 'In terms of level of vitriol, left-wing rhetoric is every bit as strong now as it has been from the Right.'

And liberal forces are striving to launch a radio network next year after a broadcasting company, Progress Media, bought radio stations in New York, Los Angeles and several other cities. Franken is likely to host a show, taking a stand against the massed ranks of right-wing 'shock jock' radio talk-show hosts.

Carter has been mocked by some for using frivolous, glossy Vanity Fair as his platform. Yet he is determined to drag the liberal masses out of their meekness to keep Bush from a second term: 'Everything I love about America is fragile. I used to be an angry young man, but I suppose I got complacent. Now strangers stop me in the street to talk about Bush.'
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:40 pm
Oh no! Vanity Fair. Bush is doomed. He will likely lose Manhattan, Cape Cod and West LA.

I should add Noe Valley and Mercer Island too.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 09:56 pm
Quote:
'I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness. But there is a large, seething majority out there against what Bush is doing to this country. This administration is as fundamentalist as the Islamics,' Carter said.


Me too, Mr. Carter........me too.

And george,

I wouldn't be too quick to pooh pooh the power of

Quote:
America's intellectual liberal luminaries


They just may be a match for the God and the Ten Commandment, support sodomy laws, anti-liberty crowd. Organized or not. Yes!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2003 10:03 pm
Lola,

We shall see in November. I'm still taking bets if you are interested. (No humiliation, whips or chains - just money and sex)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2003 10:28 am
Lola, Your post disappeared just as I was about to answer. Curses, foiled again!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:48:02